When Jimmy Savile died, I reproached his obituarists for their cover-up of his faith. Now I have to ask: what was he thinking of during daily Mass?

Last November, people filed past Savile's golden coffin in Leeds to pay their respects (Photo: PA)

Was he simply torn between good and evil? Or was it worse: did he do good so that evil might come of it?

I have just returned from a foreign absence blessedly out of touch with the internet. I came back to find an email from the Herald asking if I wanted to appear on Radio Leeds to talk about Sir Jimmy Savile. Why me, I thought at first: and then, sickeningly, I remembered: in November last year, at the time of Savile’s death, when everyone was lauding his apparently selfless charity work and all the good he had done, I had written a piece (long since forgotten by me) complaining that one thing everyone had kept very quiet about was his Catholic faith: my now deeply embarrassing headline was “Jimmy Savile’s obituaries mentioned his charity work: but why the conspiracy of silence about his faith?”

Just how wrong did I get it? There’s still a question to be asked about all this. Was Jimmy Savile a deeply conflicted human being, torn between his impulse to do good in the world and his compulsion towards a particularly repulsive kind of human sinfulness? We are all a mixture of good and evil instincts: what Catholics think of as their commitment (sometimes strong, at other times weak) towards sanctification of life is a continuing process of attempting to weaken their habitual sinfulness and strengthen their commitment to their love of God. Is that what was going on here? Or – a truly horrendous possibility – was all the good he did in the world simply a means of getting access to the young girls he abused? Would it really be worth all that time and trouble? Maybe to someone so obviously compulsive in his sexual instincts it really was. Think of those flats in hospitals he was provided with (and whose idea was that?), places he could take his victims: is that what it was all about?

I assumed at the time (not, under the circumstances, surely, entirely unreasonably) that the motivating force for all the good he did was his faith: so I reproached his obituarists (who were no less fulsome in their praise for him than I or anyone else was) for ignoring it: “Why not,” I asked, “mention that an important part of his life was attending daily Mass? There’s a deep dedication in the life of a man who gives away 90 per cent of everything he earns and so tirelessly does all the other things he did. You’d think that an obituarist would want to ask a simple question: where did all that come from? It’s almost as though they couldn’t bear to accept that the answer was his Catholicism: even that Catholicism itself could ever be the source of actual human goodness.” Oh dear.

What was going through his mind as he sat there, having slipped quietly into the back of Leeds cathedral, during those daily Masses? Was he praying for strength to resist his sexual compulsion? What did he tell his confessor? A psychologist, asked this question in one of the endless series of radio discussions about this horrible story last week, replied “probably he told him nothing: these people have an almost endless capacity to convince themselves that they have done nothing wrong”.

I remain confused about all this. Which was it: was he simply and damnably an evil man, who did good in order that the opportunity for evil might come from it? I pray that that was not the source of all the undoubted good he really did do; I really hope that he was a man torn between good and evil whose faith in the end brought him true penitence. I note that most of the cases now emerging date back to the 70s and earlier: does that mean that towards the end of his life he had changed his behaviour? I simply don’t know. Does anyone?

I usually go on for much longer than this: this time, though, I am simply reduced to silence. Thank God we are told not to judge others lest we ourselves come under judgment for it. This time I have no confident conclusions, I have nothing to say: only questions.

Related stories

Pope inaugurated the Year of Faith this morning with 14 surviving Fathers of the Council
• Read full text of Benedict XVI’s homily
• Video of the Pope’s homily
• Read full text of Patriarch Bartholomew’s address

Are people leaving the Church because of a lack of inspiring leadership, or simply because they have lost faith?

Dr William Oddie is a leading English Catholic writer and broadcaster. He edited The Catholic Herald from 1998 to 2004 and is the author of The Roman Option and Chesterton and the Romance of Orthodoxy.

It’s ok, never mind, what do you expect from human nature? After Judas betrayed Jesus even Peter denied Him. Forgive them, Lord, they know not what they do. And take the pain of all the victims, heard and unheard, and hang it on Your Cross. Lord have mercy.

NewMeena

You ask the question “Was he simply torn between good and evil? Or was it worse: did he do good so that evil might come of it?”
In my opinion he was a man with a strong heterosexual drive, but too immature to relate to adult women, hence his infatuation with young girls.
Women seem to be able to detect these men and show no interest in them. This hurts the men, but only a little because they [the men] are aware that they cannot relate to adult females.

There is also a general inability of these men to see women, above everything, as people.

NewMeena

PS: This is very sad and causes the problems of which we all know.
The source of the problem lies in the flawed childhood and upbringing of these men.

http://twitter.com/imshin imshin

But there won’t be a court case, will there? He’s dead.

http://profile.yahoo.com/PWZKI7JBARE4DDT3NQ22RWMOJE Benedict Carter

The problem lies in damaged human nature and in the mystery of iniquity.

NewMeena

That cannot be.
Billions of Human Beings each with a “human nature” do not engage in activities such as Saville’s.
Further, in situations where the earlier history of these unfortunate individuals is studied by psychologists, the root causes of the ABNORMAL human behaviour are only too apparent.

NewMeena

PS: There is no mystery about any of this, although we must continue to deepen our understanding of ourselves.

David Lindsay

If, as we now keep being told,
“everyone” knew about Jimmy Savile, then it is utterly inconceivable
that Margaret Thatcher was unaware of his activities when she entertained him
at Chequers for all 11 of the New Year’s Eves when she was Prime Minister.

She probably just didn’t care. We
are talking about Margaret Thatcher here, the woman whose legend was burnished
when she “miraculously escaped” from a bomb which killed five of her
colleagues and crippled the wife of one of her closest allies, but which had
been planted by an organisation with which she pretended not to be having what
was in fact her continuous contact.

If anyone ever did writeEminent Thatcherians, following the pattern of Lytton
Strachey’s Eminent Victorians and of Piers Brendon’sEminent Edwardians and Eminent
Elizabethans (Andrew Roberts did not stick to it inEminent Churchillians), then one of the four subjects
would just have to be Savile. How could it not be? Who, we now see, more
perfectly embodied the seamlessness between the 1960s and the 1980s, via the
complete free-for-all and the hopeless institutional response to it in the
1970s?

The New Right that became
Thatcherism was calling for drug legalisation and for the abolition of the age
of consent, and was putting those principles into practice, as surely as was
the sociologically indistinguishable New Left that eventually became New
Labour. The Sixties Swingers hated the Wilson Government, and a decade later
punk branded the Callaghan Government a “fascist regime”.

For all its alleged left-wingery,
and its ability to annoy no end the forces of conservatism that in many cases
really were and are left-wing, British rock’n’roll was made up of common or
garden proto-Thatcherites, often tax exiles. The only exceptions were David
Bowie and Eric Clapton, way out on the Far Right. The view of it as an
expression of working-class culture is also rubbish: to cite only the two most
stellar examples, neither John Lennon nor Mick Jagger came from anything
remotely resembling a working-class background, with Jagger’s father a
second-generation teacher even then, the son of a headmaster.

But who might be the other three
subjects? Lady Diana Spencer, the sometime Princess Charles of Wales,
obviously. Sir Richard Branson, the bridge between the Thatcher and the Blair
Eras. And Dr Robert Runcie? No, Dr David Jenkins. Like Thatcher, he is now 87.
His funeral, certainly if it is held in Durham Cathedral, will utterly baffle
London reporters, the youngest of whom might never have heard of him, with its
outpouring of popular grief for our champion against That Woman and all her
evil works.

But the sting in the tail, and in
the tale, would be as it has always been: that his liberal theology was
ultimately unable to provide a sufficiently radical critique, and in that way
opened up the space for things like the Radical Orthodoxy that, with its
broader sensibility in which many of us find ourselves, is such a significant
factor in the re-emergence of what is now at least broadly known as Blue
Labour; the emergence of the postliberal politics of which Radical Orthodoxy’s
founder credits me with having been the harbinger.

Yes, I do know who that means
should write it. But if, and it is a big if, I ever did so, then I could only
do so after David Jenkins, a friend of my late father’s, had had his send-off.

JonathanBurdon

Who says everyone knew and why would Thatcher have known? You’re just using it as an excuse to get at her because you don’t like her politics. The rest of your comment is the typical barmy rubbish I’ve seen you leave at the Telegraph site.

http://profile.yahoo.com/PWZKI7JBARE4DDT3NQ22RWMOJE Benedict Carter

You equate the general with the specifc. Of course family and other influences tend one in this direction or that, but the individual has to agree to do this or that specific act. We are not mindless robots, which is what you determinists surely cannot understand.

NewMeena

“…why would Thatcher have known?”

She would have known because she was the Prime Minister, and MI5 would have old her.

Describing another’s views as “barmy rubbish” is a distressingly foolish use of language – although, having said that, there is a great deal of it in the Telegraph.

http://profile.yahoo.com/PWZKI7JBARE4DDT3NQ22RWMOJE Benedict Carter

$50,000 was the price of the Caribbean island he found. He’d paid a $5,000 deposit but was forced to sell the island when his new Bishop vetoed the plan.

NewMeena

It is entirely possible that we are not mindless robots (and I am not a Determinist) , but that is no excuse for talking about a “mystery”, where none exists, instead of seeking causes.

This asinine approach to questions, problems and the unknown is typical of those who have pickled their brains with religious superstition.

Rizzo the Bear

The Catholic Herald ought to do some remedial work with regards talking to each other about such matters, Laurence.

Savile wasn’t backwards in coming forwards when it came to dragging in the lawyers over ‘libel’, eh?

This is one of the reasons why people who should have spoken out at the time didn’t because a) they were not believed and b) it would bankrupt them.

Mr Yiannopoulos got it right.

Rizzo the Bear

Did you just pick Van Morrison out of the air, karlf?
Any hard, substantial evidence?

Rizzo the Bear

No mentioning of BBC ostriches, then.

Coward.

Rizzo the Bear

I doubt it.

He needs somewhere to blow his hot air.

Rizzo the Bear

Yes you do.

Nadinewylie

Abusers of children have themselves told how they plan their lives, their relationships (even going so far as to marry/set up home with women with young children) and their careers in order to have access to vulnerable children. It is not opinion it is FACT and as such should inform our discussion about Jimmy Savile’s alleged abuse of children.

Christ was strong in his condemnation of those who hurt ‘the least of my little ones’. No amount of explanation and discussion of legal limitations or whether or not abusers believe themselves to be doing wrong or whether, if guilty, Savile even admitted to himself that he was doing wrong will alter the simple fact that TO ENGAGE IN SEXUAL CONTACT WITH A CHILD IS A CRIMINAL ACT AND CAN NEVER BE EXPLAINED OR CONDONED. What’s more, all adults know that to do so is a supreme breach of trust and the foundation of years of psychological damage for the abused.

Martin Shaw

Interesting that my previous innocuous post has been deleted. I get the impression that the kind of people who edit the Catholic Herald are the kind of people who enable people like Jimmy Savile to flourish. Maybe those who edit the Catholic Herald should be employed by the BBC or the Guardian?

The original paradox here was why did the obituaries not mention or barely mention the fact that Jimmy Savile was a devout catholic, with the suspicion that it was evidence of an anti-catholic bias in the media. I was lead to this article because I was curious to see how his obituaries were written and whether they indicated that the writers had reservations about JS. Well, the only obituary I found which had no reservations was William Odie’s original post here. More typically the obituaries included plenty of clues for anyone reading between the lines that the author was less than convinced of the public illusion.

For example in the Telegraph obituary
“Savile always claimed that the key to his success on Jim’ll Fix It was that he actually disliked children, although in later years he maintained that he had offered this explanation to allay any untoward suspicions that he liked them too much. Rumours of under-age sex circulated for some years, although the fact that no allegations of impropriety ever appeared in print seemed to confirm Savile’s own insistence that he had “no past, no nothing”.”

To mention the rumours in an obituary they must have been deafeningly loud, and the phrase “the fact that no allegations of impropriety ever appeared in print seemed to confirm” is surely just code for “he kept any such allegations out of the newspapers by legal action”. More generally the obituary is littered with phrases like “Savile always insisted that..” “Savile claimed that” suggesting healthy scepticism about many aspects of the story – including the claim that he gave 90% of his income to charity.

Or from the Guardian obituary
“But many considered that there was something strange about Savile. His enthusiasm for spending quite so much time in the hospital environment had a touch of the macabre about it. Looking back on the death of his mother, he said: “When she died she was all mine. She looked marvellous. She belonged to me. It’s wonderful, is death.””

“His flair for self-promotion and his desire to help, as publicly as possible, those in need dovetailed into each other.”

“I never had anyone beaten up, but I did not take any nonsense in the dance halls,” he told another newspaper. “I had to look after the welfare of hundreds of youngsters. I was protecting my young patrons from drugs and other immoral influences.” Part clubland heavy, part teetotaller and practising Roman Catholic – the paradox was typical of Savile.

As Odie said in his original post anyone researching Savile’s life would have been aware of his active Catholicism, but they also would have been aware of the multiple rumours about his pedophilia and necrophilia. Possibly as the the obituary writers wrote their carefully coded pieces they played down his catholicism as compensation for not writing anything like as much as they could have about his dark side.

David Lindsay

When Fr Kit Cunningham died and his taste for boys was exposed, the then Editor-in-Chief who had appointed him to this newspaper informed the world, like Esther Rantzen in relation to Jimmy Savile, that “everyone who was anyone always knew that, dahhhling”. Had it actually been a condition of his employment during that, mercifully concluded, era in this publication’s history?

NewMeena

Thank you for this informative and interesting posting.

It would seem that Oddie’s obituary for JS was the odd one out.

This would not surprise me: he [JS] was a devout (daily Mass) practicing Catholic. The writers of pro-Catholic articles always try to feed off the good or (especially) popular reputation of any publicly known persons who happen to be Catholics.

Perhaps they should be more cautious.

Rizzo the Bear

Is that it????

You might as well include Bruce Springsteen’s ‘I’m On Fire’ (lyrics go something like: Hey, little girl, is your daddy home? etc.) or The Saw Doctors’ ‘Red Cortina’? (written by lads in their mid to late twenties back in 1991 about teenage first love.

When Van Morrison was with his group, Them (back in the 1960’s), he was in his late teens/early twenties.

Today, he’s in his mid sixties, happily married with kids of his own.

I’d be far more worried about Van’s reputation if he wrote said song for a recently released new album, rather than something written almost fifty years ago!

Think about it.

NewMeena

“s”

karlf

He’s hardly going to write such a song now! wouldn’t yyou be concerned if your 14 year old daughter was having a relationship with a late teen/early 20s man, who hung around in school playgrounds, peering in the windows??? Think about it!

From The Horses Mouth

Hello, this may be the MOST IMPORTANT AND RELEVANT COMMENT that is posted on this blog, becuase it is the words of Mr Savile himself.

This is an extract from “A Winters Tale”, the autobiography of David Winter, BBC Head of Religious Broadcasting during Savile’s broadcasting career, subtitled, “An Autobiography of Living Through an Age of Change in Church and Media”. ISBN No 0745950000, Publisher Lion Books”

“I worked a few times on a programme called Speakeasy” … “I once listened bemused as Jimmy Savile expatiated at length in the BBC canteen on the reasons why St Peter wouldn’t dare bar him from heaven. “What to you mean he’s led an immoral life?” God would say to him. “Have you any idea how much money he’s raised for charity? Or how many hours he’s put in as a porter at that hospital? Get them doors open now, and quick!”

Dear Mr Oddie, with your contacts, perhaps you may wish to follow it up with a story ? Mr Winter is still active and contributes “Thought For The Day”.

Frank

What about the paedophiles within St John ambulance who are about to receive an award from the Queen’s representative:http://bit.ly/ourNZexperience

justanotherChristian

Third possibility is that he was working undercover. He said he was working undercover and you appear to have assumed that this does not apply to his churchgoing. Why would it not? See Pie and Mash’s Bill Maloney’s film on “Sun, Sea and Satan”

whytheworldisending

Why is William Oddie’s article of yesterday (19th October 2012) closed for comments? This one is 5 days old and still open for comments. Arguing on the basis of the “social effects” of departing from Christian morality is playing along with the atheist’s agenda. It is not that the social effects argument is difficult, since the effects of sexual immorality are appallingly obvious. It is just that goal posts tend to move continuously whenever one approaches morality from an atheist’s necessarily relativistic perspective. That is convenient for those who want to justify immoral conduct, since they can hide behind the multitude of academic studies which haven’t yet been performed, while continuing to perpetrate evil in the name of progress. There are no studies into the social effects of incest, necrophilia, bestiality or paedophilia but, for the time being at least these are regarded as wrong. Anyone asking why would and should be regarded as unhinged. The same used to be true of homosexual acts, and for good reason. It is not so much that the British people have become unhinged, but that their values have been sidelined and ignored by an elective dictatorship who fancies that it can de-form the conscience of our nation for its own corrupt purposes. MP’s are elected to ensure that government follows the will of the people, but for selfish reasons, too many MP’s follow the will of government when it expresses a clear intention to ride roughshod over the will of the people.

BRIAN

Once dead he is dead he is beyond redemption, so cannot have prayers & Masses said for his soul, DIVINE MERCY only extends to those who believe in JESUS and repent, even, in their last breath. Jimmy Savile once said he knew he would never be going to Heaven. ‘Jimmy Savile’s autobiography shock as pages reveal orgies, naked groupies and furious parents’ http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/jimmy-saviles-autobiography-shock-as-pages-1359536 quotes from Savile’s x-rated autobiography ‘JIMMY SAVILE O.B.E.: LOVE IS AN UPHILL THING’, which, confirms his sexual exploits with minors, including a young runaway, who the Police would have charged him with – if it had not been him.

Brian

As a Catholic I believe some Catholics are too prepared to overlook what Savile did, because, he was a Catholic – however, a person who commits such evil (and Savile himself boasted about it in his autobigraphy & that the Police knew of it, but, didn’t charge him, because, there would be a rebellion in the police station if they did). This part of his autobiography is quoted in the above link & was the 1970s. Not only was this & other sins mortal (grave) sins – forget the pychiatric tripe since Kinsey. What about the sacriliege of receiving COMMUNION while still in a state of sin?

Brian

Wrong. It is our business, because, COMMUNION is not personal. Our Lady of Fatima warned us about sacriliegous COMMUNIONs & Pope Benedict XVI, who, is hated by many because he has done so much to crack down on abusive clergy since he became Pope also warned about sacriliegous COMMUNIONs. JESUS is GOD incarnate & HE not only warns us about sacriliegous COMMUNIONs (1 Cor:10.16-21ff 1 Cor:11.23-32) & abusing minors (St. Mtt:18.1-10).

Brian

Tripe. Why do you think ‘THE BOOK OF GOMORRAH’ was written in the 11thc. AD & traditionalists should read the document of VCII before claiming it breaks with the Church. That makes JESUS, WHO, IS GOD a liar for HE said even the gates of Hell cannot stand against the Church (St. Mtt:16.18-19). If this is so then VCII cannot come from Satan.

Brian

Why do people still doubt the victims, when, he not only admitted as much, but, boasted of it in his autobiography ‘JIMMY SAVILE O.B.E.: LOVE IS AN UPHILL THING’, which, is quoted from in ‘Jimmy Savile’s autobiography shock as pages reveal orgies, naked groupies and furious parents’ http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/jimmy-saviles-autobiography-shock-as-pages-1359536: ‘A high-ranking lady police officer came in one night and showed me a picture of an attractive girl who had run away from a remand home. “Ah,” says I all serious, “if she comes in I’ll bring her back tomorrow but I’ll keep her all night first as my reward”.’ Savile then describes how the girl came to one of his dances that evening and stayed the night with him before he handed her over. He added: ‘The officeress was dissuaded from bringing charges against me by her colleagues for it was well known that were I to go, I would probably take half the station with me.'”‘The book published in January 1978 by Hodder & Stoughton Ltd. also, according to ‘The Daily Record’, referred to him asking ‘organisers of a charity event to choose a group of young girls to spend the night camping with him after the disco.’Would a person put this in his own autobiography if it were not true & if he did not believe he was above the law? ‘A high-ranking lady police officer came in one night and showed me a picture of an attractive girl who had run away from a remand home. “Ah,” says I all serious, “if she comes in I’ll bring her back tomorrow but I’ll keep her all night first as my reward”.’ Savile then describes how the girl came to one of his dances that evening and stayed the night with him before he handed her over. He added: ‘The officeress was dissuaded from bringing charges against me by her colleagues for it was well known that were I to go, I would probably take half the station with me.'”‘The book published in January 1978 by Hodder & Stoughton Ltd. also, according to ‘The Daily Record’, referred to him asking ‘organisers of a charity event to choose a group of young girls to spend the night camping with him after the disco.’Would a person put this in his own autobiography if it were not true & if he did not believe he was above the law? http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/jimmy-saviles-autobiography-shock-as-pages-1359536: ‘A high-ranking lady police officer came in one night and showed me a picture of an attractive girl who had run away from a remand home. “Ah,” says I all serious, “if she comes in I’ll bring her back tomorrow but I’ll keep her all night first as my reward”.’ Savile then describes how the girl came to one of his dances that evening and stayed the night with him before he handed her over. He added: ‘The officeress was dissuaded from bringing charges against me by her colleagues for it was well known that were I to go, I would probably take half the station with me.'”‘The book published in January 1978 by Hodder & Stoughton Ltd. also, according to ‘The Daily Record’, referred to him asking ‘organisers of a charity event to choose a group of young girls to spend the night camping with him after the disco.’Would a person put this in his own autobiography if it were not true & if he did not believe he was above the law? ‘A high-ranking lady police officer came in one night and showed me a picture of an attractive girl who had run away from a remand home. “Ah,” says I all serious, “if she comes in I’ll bring her back tomorrow but I’ll keep her all night first as my reward”.’ Savile then describes how the girl came to one of his dances that evening and stayed the night with him before he handed her over. He added: ‘The officeress was dissuaded from bringing charges against me by her colleagues for it was well known that were I to go, I would probably take half the station with me.'”‘The book published in January 1978 by Hodder & Stoughton Ltd. also, according to ‘The Daily Record’, referred to him asking ‘organisers of a charity event to choose a group of young girls to spend the night camping with him after the disco.’Would a person put this in his own autobiography if it were not true & if he did not believe he was above the law?

Brian

Why were no questions asked at the time about his book by the Police, by politicians & by investigative reporters in the secular & religious TV, newspaper & radio media? Why did no-one show this book to the C.P.S.?

Brian

If that is so why did Mrs. Thatcher outlaw the Paedophile Information Exchange in 1981?

Brian

You can reduce your ‘liked’ comment by 1 as I meant to press ‘Reply’. I doubt Savile would have confessed it to a priest as he even said publicly he did not accept the Church’s teachings or commands. It is clear he did not believe he was committing mortal sin.

Brian

Why when Savile’s autobiography ‘JIMMY SAVILE O.B.E.: LOVE IS AN UPHILL THING’ was published by H&S in 1978 was ‘JIM’LL FIX IT’ not taken off or Savile replaced as presenter?

Brian

Or stop ‘JIM’LL FIX IT’, which, began in 1975 after Savile’s autobiography was published? Or at least change it’s presenter? In fact as ‘JIMMY SAVILE O.B.E.: LOVE IS AN UPHILL THING’ was originally published in 1976 by Coronet Books perhaps ‘JIM’LL FIX IT’ could have been stopped then, or, Savile removed from presenting it?

http://twitter.com/atheistsceptic Atheist/Sceptic

He was thinking the same as all the paedophile priests and corrupt bishops who’ve also found a safe haven in the Catholic Church – that if he prays to god on his knees enough, then everything will be forgiven and it will be fine.

If you’ve never been come across by either you’re pretty lucky really!

The poem considers Jim’s journey from coal miner, to wrestler, club
bouncer, pops presenter, road safety brainwasher, to fixing childrens’
dreams on telly, to helping out at the hospital, Papal Knighthood, and
heading up the top high-security hospital prison for Britain’s most
deranged lunatic killers and dangerous rapists. Yet Jim always managed
to find time in between to be an irritating twat.

Words simply cannot describe my Shock when the Holy Spirit took me by
the hand and it was made flesh in a flash that every single line of the
poem was an anagram of the words “JIMMY SAVILLE CATHOLICK”, Using All
Of The Letters Each Time.

This can only mean one thing: I am His most humble servant, being
used as a conduit to deliver this message from a celestially-based
deity, i.e. God – or possibly Saville himself.

That’s just a fact because you can see how well it fits in with Bible
Teachings. That The Poem Be Indeed His Manifestion is further proved by
all the capital letters, like in a poster for a Victorian seance. Does
anyone here recognise the name Ivy?

As nothing ever changes, the spelling is Pope Pius IV’s. Similarly:
apostolick. For religious modernisers (whatever that means) there’s one
line in the poem without a k, which means a kiss has been left over.
Is it for you?

Imagine! Everything you needed to know about Saville’s decades of
interfering with TV guests/prison kids/corpses/coma patients (take your
pick, story ongoing) was hidden in plain sight right there in the words
“JIMMY SAVILLE CATHOLICK” all along!

Had this key to the Opus Dei secret cipher only been known, the
Vatican could have interfered and moved Saville to an island in the
Philippines.

Saville’s Slovenia connections are less well-known: he lived with his
mother until she died; he never married; and had a deep suspicion of
other relationships. Hooray for the Pope! LS is the postcode for Leeds.

The National Poet Of Slovenia In A Language People Understand
interprets important Slovenian affairs for the non-Slovene speaking
world. http://www.maria.si

Ronk

Actually that is the Evangelical Protestant view. The Catholic view, and Christ’s teaching as recorded in the Gospels, is that you will be forgiven only if you sincerely repent (i.e. honestly intend to sin no more) and that even after you have been forgiven, you must be punished with absolute full justice for all of the harm your sins have done. The Catholic Church has in fact been continually criticised as “unforgiving” by non-Catholics and even dissenting Catholcis because she unfailingly teaches this doctrine.